An image by Modesty


Suppose while walking alone in a daylit park, you encountered something like the image above — except that it was rapidly and liquidly morphing into new simple and complex shapes as it moved about on the ground. Presume that its colors are not as shown, but are complex patterns that reflect the colors of objects in its near environment. Imagine that the speed of its changing shape is fast, but not so fast as to be a blur, and it is emitting strange vibrational musical sounds, which modulate in synchrony with its articulate extrusions.

How would you decide what class of phenomenon you were experiencing?


The answer is that to interact with an experiential symmetry of any possible sort in terms of knowing and remembering we must metaphy or conceptualize it, and this is a form of filtering.

The forms we have access to change what our mind is and does, as well as ‘how it connects’ to experience and other symmetries, in general, and what our opportunities for communication are, in particular. Let’s take a moment to examine the common palette from which we might begin to select a particular vehicle of relationShip with this phenomenon:

A: A hallucination (i.e: something having no reality beyond our own imaginal experience)

[problem: language, ideas about classes, names and relationships are all imaginary, and thus using this as a reason to discard or denegrate experience is absurd because we only have experience in coupling with ‘imagination’. The popular passtime of denigrating imagination requires imagination to be proposed or enacted and is thus self-negating as a logical proposition.]

B: An alien (a non-terrestrial life form)

C: An energy-creature (a form of life considered impossible since no ‘proof’ of them exists)

D: An angel (a being from the universe ours is an emanation of)

E: A strange machine (some form of non-human mechanical technology)

[F. Something that matches no currently available class or instance concept]

The first choice we make in metaphying the experience sets the shape of all future activity as regards the experience, and forms the substrates of character and meaning with which we will encode or recapitulate memories or stories about it.

What toys do we use to enter these gardens and select our answers?

Why do we only select from a given set in which all the members were formed by distant others?

Do our lexicons work?


Imagine that as a speices we possess a pair of adjustable sunglasses with a unique power: they are designed to block out transports of unity.

In the physical universe, transports of unity are bright, like their elemental counterparts in stars. But they are bright in a domain where we have no eyes — we only have something like ‘billions of feelers’. So these glasses are designed, in a sense, to allow us to have control over the essential brightness in an inward universe: the cognitive universe we are becoming in concert with what we refer to as our ‘environment’.

We might say the purpose of these inner-eye filters to give us control over whether what we see inwardly values generality first (one brightness) or specificity first (many brightnesses, each divisible). In language this difference could be seen by comparing a parable, or a fairy-tale to, for example, an accounting ledger.

Now imagine that these sunglasses have a little knob — a sort of tuning apparatus — and they can be adjusted over a bandwidth for what they block out, or make invisible.

With the ‘volume’ all the way down, one can see and experience the complete unification of all participants, scales of size, elements, transports, contexts, lineages, purposes, sources and futures.

With the volume all the way up, everything is totally separated, there are no transports of connectivity, and the experience is one of total isolation.


These glasses control how much connectivity we have with the universes within and around us, and they do this by limiting what we can see of this connectivity, and thus have direct access to. Because of what they subtract it quickly becomes hard to remember that they can be removed, — we rapidly forget we are bathing in more than the whole spectrum of their many possible linear ‘settings’. It is the shielding they provide which we actually value.

At the lowest setting, someone wearing our cognitive sunglasses would experience all of organismal activity, history and sentience as a unified animal — existing with(in) themselves in a ‘unityPlace’ something like their imagination — yet distinct from our common definition of this dimension. From this vantage the wearer would notice some extremely unexpected features of what humans call time.

With the volume all the way up, the experience of isolation expands so rapidly that it is hard to even remember that one can adjust the volume in the other direction. As one leaps away from generality and unity toward specificity — the paths back toward one’s origins get badly clouded by branchings — and then disappear altogether.

Although we have been imagining, we do in fact possess a working analog of with these glasses, and their lenses are formed of language. Their frames would represent ‘games about formal meaning’ or ‘metaphor’ — and the knob we adjust the attenuation with... that’s what we might call a logic. Not Logic, but a specific and informal (yet generally formal) relationship with how we assemble meaning, which is unique in each instance, no matter how habitually our references to such things and momentums fail to imply or sustain this fact.

Since the beginning of our relationship with this cognitive artifact grave perils have arisen for our species and our world, simply because we have forgotten how to take the glasses off.

Now, what is this brightness they are shielding us from?


Sometime in the history of Earth an event occurred which is recorded in every form and character of Life on our world. In fact there were many such events, each uniquely situated in the ladders organismal sentience is still climbing toward its often unimaginably majestic goals. There is one event in particular, however, which has concerned me since childhood, and that is the rise of human sentience from its organismal and animalian precursors.

Generally, our sciences and even our religions train us to pursue these questions as though a special gift were somehow ‘magically’ bestowed upon our species alone from amongst the many children of Earth; a gift whose powers of enaction lifted our species to a unique position in the organismal biosphere.

Thus we are generally obliged to believe that humans aren’t really like animals, because we have some extra powers — supposedly. Yet this ‘implicit’ understanding too often falsely colors the realities of our experience of organismal sentience, and of the nurseries it arises and sometimes flourishes with(in).

There is another perspective on the arisal of complex representational sentience on Earth, and its obviousness has for some reason never led to its common observation or discussion. It is that as living diversity emerges in co-elaboration and perhaps competition — it will tend over time to accrue a momentum in sets of relational dimensions which are hyper-expansive. This results in the invention of terrains for this momentum or potential to become manifest. Tiny magnifications in complexity and diversity lead to explosively geometric increases in the potential for and activation of novel transports (and thus expressions) of relation. In a computer, this is interesting — but on a living world, it is explosively generative of biorelational symmeteries — such as animals, ecosystems, cells and human beings. It generates billions of modes and forms and moments of organismal awareness. Essentially ‘alien knowing’.

As our terrestrial nursery undergoes explosive cycles of organismal variation, thriving, and extinction — the preserved complexity and diversity of the survivors is being by turns enhanced and compressed. The compression is of a sort that becomes rapidly explosive, but explodes in a way that establishes dimensions rather than erasing them. It is something like pure sentience-precursor, cultivating itself in ever more diverse and complex contexts, transports and vehicles of biocognitive relation.

Turns out that it is possible to engineer a perpetual motion device, and you can engineer one that gains amplitude of expression in geometric leaps which reach absurd speeds and complexities almost instantly. The problem is making it explode in a way that generates life and complex diversity rather than reducing them to their energetic constituents rapidly.

The reason we can’t do this as easily with technology is simple: when you create scalarly self-amplifying standing waves in ‘things’ — they explode. When you do this in a biocognitive dimension... eventually you get something akin to human sentience. The sunglasses we use shield us from the incredible inward brightness of the self-magnifying explosion that we are and are with(in).


By their underlying inferences the physical sciences train us to value individuals and species as the primary conservators of biological and cognitive complexity. This move subtly manipulates us to see the structure as most significant and deserving of precedence, and is materialistically biased. It is in fact the content which has precedence, and this is largely obscured by hidden choices we make when agreeing with common models, logics of identity, and terms.

Evolution, we are told, is a process requiring vast epochs to produce even the smallest attenuations in organismal form. But organisms are not merely their forms. What we find apparent in careful examination is that evolutionary complexity is preserved as much in the transports of organismal relation and in environments as it is in individuals, or separate assemblies of given members. What this turns out to mean is that there are hidden wells of motive energies that find expression in what we call evolution, and they are not competitive — but relational.

What Earth has been doing for about the past 4.5 billion years is something far beyond anything we have a metaphor of. The endless relational symmetries of Life here have been assembling a scalarly recombinant sentience explosion. It‘s the biocognitive equivalent to rapidly cultivating galaxies — and the media required is cognitive, or relational, rather than ‘purely physical’.

And for at least the past 1500 years, our species has been tearing it limb from limb, without realizing that those are our own limbs, in realtime.


The way it works out in nature is that living worlds assemble uniquely recombinant biodiversity as a relational asset, and then they labor to sustain and elaborate this basis to empower them to accomplish further leaps into new dimensions of scale and complexity. What we’re calling complexity translates into new abilities, and eventally new forms of ability. In this kind of game, abundance of diverse forms is the best of all treasures, in part because it is recombinantly hypergenerative and also because unexpected cataclysm is a common and well-remembered feature of terrestrial and biocognitive history here.

In times of sudden or protracted crisis, abundant animalian-scale biodiversity equates to something of a shock-absorber for the planet as an animal. The more complex and vital the established populations are, the better able they are to sustain at least some of their complex members and relationships across the gap of cataclysm. This potential (when sufficient in comparison to the crisis) also results in ‘faster healing’ — the surviving niches and individuals will all garner non-linearly expanding benefit from any relational diversity that survives with them.

Over long periods of terrestrial time, what ends up happening is that radical cycles of abundance and impoverishment occur almost haphazardly. In a game of ‘suddenly arising seasons’ the vast complexity of Earth has been furiously in bloom, only to find itself nearly extinguished in the next instant. The prevalence and recurrence of this pattern is one of the most profound revelations of the fossil record, but we do not need fossils to find it recorded hereabouts — it is written into the cellular and animalian memory of every lifeform on our world.

If any competition exists, it is competition to be included with those who will continue to exist primarily for the sake of each other the biospheric entity — and not the common human idea of competition for abstract survival of individuals or breeding-lines that we are commonly blindsided by. The engine behind evolution isn’t competition, its co-ignition — and that’s an essential part of why we find the organismal universe so vitally poetic and charactered — because the source-momentums being expressed are themselves profoundly generative of character, and metapoetic.


Each terrestrial creature generally recapitulates the cognitive history of their entire planet, in a phase-domain relevant to their positions in the tree of the emergence of life. Thus each organism will re-experience and re-express (in an entirely unique local way) the specific cognitive history of their species, and perhaps moreso of their lineages — but also of their world, and their universe.

This is also true of our cognitive development, by which I mean to say that children born now would be reExperiencing and reExpressing all of the early phases of the acquisition of human consciousness — as well as the most up-to-date changes in the cogniscium of Earth and our species as a whole. The adults would be experiencing and expressing something similar, but not from a perspective where they could actualize their contact with these flows and momentums. In general, at least in our society, such experiences and expressions would be diagnosed away. No one around here understands this well enough to grant us direct access to the connective realities of ‘what we are and may become’. At least, not in any way that is even vaguely in accord with the vastness of the domains we discuss.

But let us return to our game in which a living planet is like a sentience lens. We could accurately say that it is sunlight which is the source of organismal activity and sentience — but this would be a false and ‘single-position’ perspective which while useful, is still too much of a trap. If we understand the general shape of what has been going on in organismal reality (rather than scientific models of it) more accurately, a peculiar and seemingly impossible picture begins to assemble itself from the fuzzy portions that assemble themselves in the in-between of our models and sciences.

The picture is one of a sentient library learning itself. And well within the frame are human powers of assembly and mutual uplift beyond anything all our human religions combined could shed light on. Stories such as these can only shed light if they rapidly result in their own erasure — due to having provided direct access to what they were referring to.

Organisms don’t use or need laws or formal systems of problem-solving. They are recombinantly and innovatively relational. Laws are useless in terrains where relation and circumstance are the actual ‘rulers’. What is useful...are ways...of relation. In other words: transports — instead of artifacts built from memories of contact with a single transport.

In a very general sense we are speaking of Trees. Trees of transports along which the fruit of organismal sentience was ever-more completely and diversely arriving...such that entirely new dimensions of Trees and Fruit... would arise and sustain themselves explosively in the wake of the first organismal gestures on our world.




l.e: 050207


Understand : Acknowledge : Support : reSpawn(d) : Prosper